Resolution on the draft treaty drawn up by the Dutch Presidency
Date: 1997-06-11
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Council, Treaty on European Union, citizens' Europe, common foreign and security policy, enlargement of the Union













EUR-Lex - 51997IP0565 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997IP0565

Resolution on the draft treaty drawn up by the Dutch Presidency  


Official Journal C 200 , 30/06/1997 P. 0070 





B4-0565/97Resolution on the draft treaty drawn up by the Dutch PresidencyThe European Parliament,- having regard to the position it has already adopted, prior to and during the IGC,- having regard to the Memorandum submitted by its President setting out ten priorities,- having regard to the Dutch Presidency's draft treaty of 30 May 1997,A. recalling that the objectives of the IGC, laid down at the Turin European Council, are as follows:- bringing the Union and its citizens closer together,- a more effective common foreign and security policy,- preparing the institutions for enlargement,- greater democracy in the Union,B. welcoming the advances made by the draft treaty of 30 May 1997 in areas such as:- the inclusion of a new title dealing with employment,- the incorporation of the Social Protocol into the Treaty,- the strengthening of Community policies in the areas of the environment, consumer protection and public health,- increased effectiveness in the area of justice and home affairs,- the extension of the powers of the Court of Justice in matters concerning fundamental rights,- the reduction in the number of procedures, the extension of the scope of the codecision procedure and the abolition of the third reading in that procedure;- the granting of legal personality to the Union,- the draft interinstitutional agreement on the budgetary aspects of the CFSP,C. whereas if future enlargements are to be possible it is essential to carry out a root-and-branch reform of the Union's institutions and, in particular, to abolish the unanimity rule, in line with the positions adopted in paragraph 22(iii) of its resolution of 17 May 1995 on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union with a view to the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference - Implementation and development of the Union ((OJ C 151, 19.6.1995, p. 56.)),The challenges posed by the IGC for the Amsterdam European Council1. Notes that, on the eve of the Amsterdam meeting, a certain number of important objectives laid down in Turin have still not been fully achieved by means of the draft treaty, whereas a serious failure or an outcome seen as a step backwards would represent a blow to European integration, since:(a) the draft does not yet point towards an interinstitutional balance relying on more democracy and efficiency among the institutions;(b) the political, economic and social dimension to the European Union is still outweighed by the monetary dimension;(c) the new powers invested in the institutions, on the eve of the opening of enlargement negotiations, an historic objective confirmed in Turin, are not yet sufficient to enable an enlarged Union to function properly;2. Mindful, as the only Community institution elected by universal suffrage, of its responsibilities vis-à-vis European citizens, calls on the Heads of State or Government to demonstrate the requisite political determination so that in the closing stages of the conference further progress will be sought and achieved in the following areas;A UNION CLOSER TO ITS CITIZENSFreedom, security and justice3. Welcomes the gradual transfer to the Community pillar of policy on the right of asylum, refugees, immigration, the status of third-country nationals legally resident on the territory of the Union, Schengen and the draft protocol on the right of asylum, but considers that the extension of the role of the Court of Justice ((Articles H and K.7 of the draft treaty.)) in these areas is too limited to guarantee citizens access, and, given that Parliament is granted no power of legislative codecision ((Articles G and K.10 of the draft treaty.)), the orientation followed:- weakens the Community pillar and method;- is at odds with the stated intention of improving the protection of fundamental rights;- reduces the scope of the advances planned in the area of justice and home affairs;- represents a loss of national parliamentary powers of scrutiny but without the introduction of parliamentary control by the European Parliament;Union and citizens4. Emphasizes that sufficient progress has not yet been made in the draft treaty of 30 May 1997 with regard to the substance of citizenship, as regards both individual and collective rights, even though this represents a cornerstone of the European integration process ((Article 8 of the draft treaty.)); with that aim in view emphasizes that:(a) fundamental rights must be guaranteed as effectively as possible, by procedures which do not depend on decisions taken by quasi-unanimity ((Article Fa of the draft treaty.));(b) the principle of freedom of movement and the principle of non- discrimination must be implemented by means of qualified majority voting and in accordance with the codecision procedure ((Articles 6a and 8a of the draft treaty. ));(c) as regards the economic sphere, policies conducive to increased competitiveness should be promoted at Community level - especially through greater flexibility on the labour market - in order to enable Member States to increase employment, thereby also creating the necessary basis for viable policies;(d) as regards the social sphere:- fundamental social rights must be enshrined in the Treaty;- provisions contained in the Social Protocol, which will be included in the Treaty, should be strengthened;- the title headed 'Employment' should be strengthened in such a way that it has a genuine impact on overall policy, going beyond a mere coordination of economic policies and providing the basis for an active employment policy at European level ((New Title after Title VI.));(e) as regards the cultural sphere:- the cultural dimension of the European project must be referred to as a cornerstone of citizenship;- every citizen of the Union must have a right enshrined in the Treaty to use his or her official EU language in his or her written contacts with the institutions and bodies of the Union and to receive answers in that language;- language policy must be specifically recognized as a dimension of cultural policy and Article 128 of the Treaty must be adjusted accordingly;(f) as regards the requirements for transparency ((Article 191a of the draft treaty. )):- the reduction in the number of decision-making procedures and their simplification are welcome;- the legislative activities of the Council must be made public, it must be determined in this context which activities are public when the Council and Parliament act as legislators, and the responsibility of individual members of the Council must be attested by the publication of votes;- the public must have access to documents drawn up by the institutions;- the arrangements for simplifying the Treaties must be adopted during the current IGC and the work of codification of the Treaties must be speedily concluded;(g) the IGC should add a new title headed 'Energy' to the Treaties;A MORE EFFICIENT COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY AND EXTERNAL ECONOMIC POLICY5. Notes that the ambition of introducing an efficient common foreign and security policy (CFSP), which was already proclaimed when the Treaty was last revised, has still not been given sufficient content in the draft of 30 May 1997; stresses that the European Parliament has shown itself capable of fulfilling an active and constructive role within the CFSP, regrets therefore the inadequate role foreseen for Parliament in the draft treaty and demands in particular that Parliament be fully consulted about and informed of the development of the CFSP;6. Notes, however, that some progress has been made in introducing the concept of constructive abstention and in extending qualified majority voting when adopting common positions and joint actions; believes that the proposed decision-making procedures should be further developed in order to avoid blocking in CFSP ((Article J.13 of the draft treaty.));7. Stresses that the Commission must be given the widest possible powers, and in particular play a full part in external representation of the Union ((Article J.15 of the draft treaty.));8. Believes that, in the area of security policy, the EU should have the means to strengthen conflict prevention capabilities, taking account of the OSCE final act and the United Nations Charter;9. Notes the continuing clarification of the relationship between the EU and the WEU with a view to gradual incorporation and welcomes the possibilities of enhanced cooperation between the EU and the WEU;10. Expects the estimate of CFSP expenditure ((Article J.17 of the draft treaty.)) to be defined in accordance with the present draft interinstitutional agreement which it hereby explicitly approves;11. Considers that, if the Union is given legal personality in accordance with the text of the draft treaty, significant international agreements which implement the objectives of the CFSP as laid down in Article J.1 must be submitted to Parliament for its assent;12. Calls, in the sphere of external economic relations, for the principle of parallelism between the internal and external responsibilities of the European Union to be respected by granting the European Parliament the right to give its assent to all international agreements whose substance is dealt with at internal level under the codecision procedure; asks to be involved in the decision-making procedure in connection with the common commercial policy (Article 113 of the EC Treaty) and calls for the inclusion of services, direct foreign investment and intellectual property in Article 113 of the EC Treaty;THE INSTITUTIONS IN A MORE DEMOCRATIC AND EFFECTIVE UNION IN THE CONTEXT OF ENLARGEMENT13. Notes that there remain serious deficiencies by comparison with the objectives defined by the Turin European Council of 29 March 1996, and in particular:- insufficient extension of qualified majority voting ((Chapter 16 of the draft treaty listing the articles for which extension of qualified majority voting is envisaged.)) (particularly as regards the measures seeking to prevent discriminatory legislation in the area of justice and home affairs, CFSP actions and common positions, appointments to Community bodies, social policy, certain aspects relating to taxation and huge areas with what are deemed to be substantial budgetary implications);- the refusal to extend codecision to all legislative and budgetary acts, in particular to new policies (matters relating to justice and home affairs which have been transferred to the first pillar, for example) and to the remaining legislative aspects of the common agricultural policy;- the holding in abeyance of the question of scrutiny by the Community co- legislator of implementing acts ((Declaration to be included in the Final Act. )), even though the solution of this problem was postponed pending the IGC;- the lack of any proposal as to the composition of the Commission;- the lack of a clear choice concerning the weighting of votes ((Variants 1 and 2 for a new weighting of votes in the Council, Chapter 16 of the draft treaty.));- the failure to include assent by the European Parliament in Article N of the EU treaty, Article 6a of the draft treaty, Article 8e of the draft treaty (if no majority decision has been taken under the codecision procedure), Article 201 of the draft treaty (own resources), Article 209 of the draft treaty (if no majority decision has been taken under the codecision procedure), Article 235 of the EC Treaty and all important international agreements;14. Considers it essential for democratic representation to be strengthened by the adoption of a common procedure for the election of Members of the European Parliament based on proportional representation, a provision clearing the way for the adoption of a single statute for Members of the European Parliament, and a legal basis relating to European political parties;15. Considers that it must be involved in determining its own seat and must continue to control the organization of its own work;Closer cooperation16. Takes the view that the text of the draft treaty of 30 May 1997 must be improved in such a way that:- triggering of closer cooperation is accompanied by the necessary guarantees of effectiveness and democracy: qualified majority in the Council (possibly after an interim period decided by unanimity) and assent by the European Parliament;- in cases of closer cooperation full Community rules, including the participation of Parliament and scrutiny by the Court, apply;- expenditure resulting from any form of closer cooperation is properly charged to the Community budget ((Part V, Article (2) of the draft treaty.));Need to resort to the Community method17. Emphasizes the need to resort to Community procedures and methods, which have been used successfully since Community integration began and which may once again prove indispensable (the inclusion of binding timetables, for example) if solutions are to be found to certain particularly difficult problems in the context of this IGC;18. Is persuaded that no enlargement negotiations can be concluded successfully unless the necessary institutional reforms are carried out beforehand;19. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Presidency of the IGC, the Council Presidency, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Commission and the other Community institutions.